Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Hypertrophic ...€¦ · Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy . Martin S. Maron, MD, FACC, FHRS. Medical Director

Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Martin S. Maron, MD, FACC, FHRS Medical Director Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center Tufts Medical Center Boston, MA Chanin T. Mast HCM Center Morristown Medical Center Morristown, NJ

DISCLOSURE

• Gadolinium is FDA off-label use for CV imaging

Strongest Risk Factors

Strongest Risk Factors:

Cardiac arrest/Sus. VT.

Familial Hx of SD Syncope Multiple-repetitive NSVT ↓BP — exercise Massive LVH ≥30 mm

Highest

Intermediate

Lowest

ICD

Challenges of Risk Stratification in HCM

Three

Risk Factors (2%)

Two Risk Factors (10%)

One Risk Factor (33%)

Zero Risk Factors (55%)

~50% of Clinically Identified HCM Pts At Increased Risk For Sudden Death

0.5%/year

The “Grey Area” Of Risk Stratification

~40% of HCM Sudden Deaths

LA

LA

VS

RV

LV VS

A B C

D E F

Foci for Ventricular Arrhythmias?

RV

LV VS

Holter NSVT and Presence of LGE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% o

f HC

M P

atie

nts

with

NSV

T

Adabag et al. n=177

Rubinstein et al. (Mayo) n=220

p<0.001

LGE (+)

LGE (-)

LGE for Prognosis in HCM Multicenter Study

• Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA

• Minneapolis Heart Institute

• Toronto General Hospital, Canada

• Azzendia Carregia, Florence, Italy

• Bologna, Italy

• Pisa, Italy

• Rome, Italy

• PERFUSE CMR Core Laboratory

1,293 HCM Patients SCD

Event

3.5±1.7

Relation Between Sudden Death and Extent of LGE in 1293 HCM Patients

Free

dom

from

Sud

den

Dea

th

Follow-up (years) Chan R, Maron MS et al. in Review

LGE (-)

LGE < 10%

LGE 10-19%

LGE ≥20%

Sudden Death Event Rates in HCM Patients without Conventional Risk Factors

Chan R, Maron MS et al. in Review

% LGE Adjusted HR Est. 5-year Event Rate(%)

0% 1.0 2.5 5% 1.3 3.2

10% 1.6 4.0 15% 2.0 5.0 20% 2.6 6.3 25% 3.2 8.0 30% 4.2 10.0 40% 6.7 15.5

Improvement of Sudden Death Prediction with Addition of %LGE to Risk Model Su

dden

Dea

th E

vent

Rat

e

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

When Extensive LGE Counts

RV LV

32 year-old man with Sudden Death

Asymptomatic (Max LV WT = 26 mm)

Normal Ejection Fraction

No Traditional Risk Factors RF

LGE = 22% of the LV Mass

Strongest 1˚ Risk Factors: Familial Hx of SD Syncope Multiple-repetitive NSVT ↓BP — exercise Massive LVH ≥30 mm

Highest

Intermediate

Lowest

ICD

CMR LGE ≥15%

NO LGE

Chan R, Maron MS et al. in Review

Risk Factors

Risk of SD is about the Amount of LGE…Not its Pattern or

Location

D

RV

LV

B

LV RV

VS

LV

C

VS

A

VS

RV

LV

RV Insertion Point LGE in HCM = Expanded Extracellular space

Roberts, WC AJC 1992

Not Likely Replacement Fibrosis

LV

RV

VS

Sudden Death Risk in Patients with RV Insertion Point LGE Only

Free

dom

from

Adv

erse

H

CM

-rel

ated

Eve

nts

Follow-up (years)

p = 0.7

No LGE

RV Insertion Point LGE

A C

D E F

LA

P

D D

P

VS VS

B

P

D

* * *

* *

*

LV Apical Aneurysm with Thrombus

Maron MS et al. Circulation 2009

C

LA LV

LA LV

LA LV

LA LV

Cardiovascular Event Rate = 11%/yr

Maron MS et al. Circulation 2009

Patients with LVAA (n=28)

Aborted Cardiac Arrest

(2)✝

Progressive Heart Failure/

Death (5)✝

Sudden Death

(2)*

non-fatal embolic stroke

(1)

Appropriate ICD Discharge

(3)*

Alive/ Clinically

Stable (n = 16)*

Adverse Events (n = 12)

non-fatal embolic stroke

(1)

CMR in HCM

• Particularly well suited to characterize the diverse phenotypic expression of this complex disease…

• Superior to echo for HCM diagnosis…ie., anterolateral wall, apex

• Management strategies for invasive septal reduction therapy...ie., mitral valve, anomalous insertion of papillary muscles

• Sudden Death Risk Prediction...Extensive LGE (≥15% of LV) identifying a novel subgroup of HCM patients at increased risk for SD that would not be considered without CMR and may now be candidates for ICD

• Absence of LGE associated with low risk….may serve to influence decision-making against ICD implants in “grey-zone” situations